Rhapsody was little more than OPENSTEP with MacOS classic like user interface. There was even a way to turn on OPENSTEP style interface. It was probably Apple's way to entice OPENSTEP developers who apparetnly didn't have Apple hardware.
MacOS X is quite different from Rhapsody. I'm not saying they don't have ported it to x86. I heard they did, but I honestly don't know. But trying to use Rhapsody x86 version's existence as a proof of MacOS X x86 version is not that strong argument. It's like Microsoft has PPC version of Win XP somewhere, because they have Win NT for PPC while ago.
No, iTunes for MacOS X is a Carbon app, which is based on classic MacOS API. Yello Box is an implementation of (sort of) Cocoa, which is from OpenStep (NEXTSTEP)
Please, if you don't know anything, just don't post. They'll charge for new version which is 10.3 not 10.2.8, and it is not another bug fix.
On second thought, I don't think you want to know what is truth, you just want to say something cynical hoping that makes you look cool. Well, it seemd to work, at least for those who modded up for whatever reason which I won't understand.
I agree that customizability(?) is the big reason why a lot of linux (or *BSD) users use it.
But the problem is that there are things you just can't do (or not as efficient) with linux. If you like what MacOS X offers, or what Windows offers and you can't find that in linux, flexibility is useless. Flexibility only matters when it has all the features you need.
I don't know what you mean shells are not hidden. You can use any shell you want in MacOS X.
And MacOS can run pretty much any program Linux can. If you didn't know that, it might be worth to look at it a little closer.
Re:Holy Crap, these G5s are going to be $$$
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 1
It's not a faster processor, it's a higher clocked processor with a different architecture. They are two different things.
1. You don't have to pay for every update, only the major release like Jaguar and Panther. And the cycle is more like a year and half between major releases.
2. Who forces you to buy every release? If you like Windows release schedule, just buy new MacOS only when new Windows version comes, that would solve your problem:)
It sounds like Mac is not for you. So why do you bother? Do your paretns force you to buy one?
Other than game, what exactly can't you do with a Mac? No, I don't want to hear about CAD or something. As a geek, what do you think is absent in Mac, which you really need?
And by the way, since when playing game is a part of characteristics of a geek?
I think PS 2 has a firewire (i-Link) port too. Current kernel may not have support for firewire. But it's still possible to add it. So you may not be the one who laughs at the end.:)
So, you logic is Windows won because it works and others don't. I'd say it is not a so popular view.
If you say "follow the way most people are used to", it's more reasonalble, (which still I don't agree but it's just my opinion).
So if it's all marketing, would you buy any car without considering anything because they are all same? I don't think so. As you said, "There may be some differences in technology, style, and quality, and there may be some preferences". These are what make people choose one over others. So what is wrong with concerning these things?
You said in particular, all the features Hacker likes in BeOS had been considered by other OS designers--and rejected
What were the reasons for them to reject those feature? The fact some guys considered and rejected some ideas does not mean the ideas are generally bad. You should consider the context of the decision. Windows dev guys have known their API sucks, that's one of the reasons why they try to push.net. But they still chose to keep the API so far, that's because they put priority on compatibility over better development environment. That's why they made Windows 95. Unless you give me some reasonable explanation why those features are undesirable, just saying "some guys already knew and didn't use them" is not so convincing to me.
From when is Photoshop a graphics converting tool?
Far more easy than photoshop when dealing with lots of pictures
And that's not what Photoshiop is made for.
That would make MacOS X look like other *Nix. Giving too many options to do a same taks is not what Mac is about. I unerstand at times sloppy focus might be useful, but it is simply not worth to give confusion to users whom MacOS is designed for.
And again I think you're not saying they should change it instead it's not for you. Am I right?
But I'm still amused to know how sloppy focus can be so critical that an OS can be COMPLETELY unusable for someone.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Rhapsody was little more than OPENSTEP with MacOS classic like user interface. There was even a way to turn on OPENSTEP style interface. It was probably Apple's way to entice OPENSTEP developers who apparetnly didn't have Apple hardware.
MacOS X is quite different from Rhapsody. I'm not saying they don't have ported it to x86. I heard they did, but I honestly don't know. But trying to use Rhapsody x86 version's existence as a proof of MacOS X x86 version is not that strong argument. It's like Microsoft has PPC version of Win XP somewhere, because they have Win NT for PPC while ago.
When a company loses money year after year, the loss won't remain as a constant. It will be snowballing.
No, iTunes for MacOS X is a Carbon app, which is based on classic MacOS API. Yello Box is an implementation of (sort of) Cocoa, which is from OpenStep (NEXTSTEP)
This guy left a memo to notify the security holes. That proves he was aware that he was intruding.
Please, if you don't know anything, just don't post. They'll charge for new version which is 10.3 not 10.2.8, and it is not another bug fix.
On second thought, I don't think you want to know what is truth, you just want to say something cynical hoping that makes you look cool. Well, it seemd to work, at least for those who modded up for whatever reason which I won't understand.
I don't know what you mean shells are not hidden. You can use any shell you want in MacOS X. And MacOS can run pretty much any program Linux can. If you didn't know that, it might be worth to look at it a little closer.
It's not a faster processor, it's a higher clocked processor with a different architecture. They are two different things.
1. You don't have to pay for every update, only the major release like Jaguar and Panther. And the cycle is more like a year and half between major releases. 2. Who forces you to buy every release? If you like Windows release schedule, just buy new MacOS only when new Windows version comes, that would solve your problem :)
It sounds like Mac is not for you. So why do you bother? Do your paretns force you to buy one? Other than game, what exactly can't you do with a Mac? No, I don't want to hear about CAD or something. As a geek, what do you think is absent in Mac, which you really need? And by the way, since when playing game is a part of characteristics of a geek?
So now it's BFS' fault that BeOS couldn't succeed? Since when File System is the most important factor for OS' success?
I think PS 2 has a firewire (i-Link) port too. Current kernel may not have support for firewire. But it's still possible to add it. So you may not be the one who laughs at the end. :)
So, you logic is Windows won because it works and others don't. I'd say it is not a so popular view. If you say "follow the way most people are used to", it's more reasonalble, (which still I don't agree but it's just my opinion).
So if it's all marketing, would you buy any car without considering anything because they are all same? I don't think so. As you said, "There may be some differences in technology, style, and quality, and there may be some preferences". These are what make people choose one over others. So what is wrong with concerning these things? You said in particular, all the features Hacker likes in BeOS had been considered by other OS designers--and rejected What were the reasons for them to reject those feature? The fact some guys considered and rejected some ideas does not mean the ideas are generally bad. You should consider the context of the decision. Windows dev guys have known their API sucks, that's one of the reasons why they try to push .net. But they still chose to keep the API so far, that's because they put priority on compatibility over better development environment. That's why they made Windows 95. Unless you give me some reasonable explanation why those features are undesirable, just saying "some guys already knew and didn't use them" is not so convincing to me.
From when is Photoshop a graphics converting tool? Far more easy than photoshop when dealing with lots of pictures And that's not what Photoshiop is made for.
That would make MacOS X look like other *Nix. Giving too many options to do a same taks is not what Mac is about. I unerstand at times sloppy focus might be useful, but it is simply not worth to give confusion to users whom MacOS is designed for. And again I think you're not saying they should change it instead it's not for you. Am I right? But I'm still amused to know how sloppy focus can be so critical that an OS can be COMPLETELY unusable for someone. :)